One of the joys of being a commentator in the Australian media is the freedom to regularly make predictions about upcoming events without ever being held to account for your failings, while patting yourself on the back when the law of averages allows you to get one right. We here at Pure Poison think that it’s about time that we kept a tally of how prescient our highly regarded journos and commentators actally are and so we are proud to announce the Harold Camping Prediction Meadallion. This prestigious prize will be awarded on a monthly basis to the person whose predictions fail to materialise.
Your task, dear readers, is to bring us the confident predictions of the punditocracy so that we may document them and then reflect upon their brilliance once events have come to pass. We seek bursts of insight like this one from the esteemed Andrew Bolt:
This is moving fast. And it’s over…
…From my own calls, it seems to be true at least of one minister. Which must mean John Howard will quit as Prime Minister.
…Actually, it’s right of both. Costello isn’t stirring any of this, but is ready to lead. He’ll be prime minister tomorrow.
Those heady days of PM Costello, however can we forget them.
Add the predictions below, and once a month we’ll award a Harold to the most spectacularly wrong person in the Australin media.
85 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Fractious
Indeed. The other day, during one of the major downpours, I saw someone take a garbage bag and using a pair of scissors, cut holes in the side and end and then use the bag effectively as a raincoat. Crossing the dark in this orange coloured bag, he was also using if as effectively a fluoro vest. He held a piece of cardboard over his head, using it effectively as an umbrella. I presume he did this because he lacked an umbrella or a fluoro vest or a raincoat at the time.
As I noted above to Howard, in October 2009, it seemed to Abbott that the CPRS was not as good as having a tax, and only after he decided taxes were impolitic did it occur to him to begin saying that the CPRS was indeed a tax. The doctrine of estoppel (if not logic and empirical observation) should apply.
Howard B
That being so, at full-time it’s General Public 1, Howard B nil.
Concerned as I am with people’s general wellbeing Howard, you may sleep soundly and peacefully in the full and certain knowledge that I shall, and thank you for granting your permission.
Fran
Before repsonding, let me make it clear that on the issue of climate change and a carbon price in general I’m uncommited. I don’t know enough about either issue and am happy to leave it in the hands of those who do.
What we are discussing here is the issue of what the PM said to the electorate, how it should be interpreted in the context of the manner it was delivered, if what was said has not come to pass and, if so, does that constitute some form of deception, deliberate or otherwise, on her part
In the context of generally addressing the wider nation on national television (as oppossed to solely policy wonks, academics, media junkies, the tragics of the blogosphere, etc.), an unqualified statement of ‘no carbon tax’, I think it’s fair to say, is going to be heard across the wider apolitical electorate as ‘the government will not be exacting a fee for the privilege of emitting carbon’.
Like I said to fractious, imagine Julia trying to explain herself to the nation using any one of your tortured analogies: “well, it’s like a bus driver who also does a bit of clerical” or, “imagine a garbage bag used as a raincoat”. Please. ‘You made an unqualified statement that, in the context, implied the government will not be seeking to exact a fee for emitting carbon, now you’re babbling about raincoats and garbage bags’, would, I suggest, be the wider community sentiment.
I understand if you wish refute my claim as spokesman for the wider electorate, but I’d say the post election polling bears it out.
It’s clearly axiomatic that to ascend to the highest eschelons of our democratic politics, one needs an above average amount of political acumen and intellect. You might be confusing these qualities with your own political beliefs and opinions.
Fractious
LOL! How did I end up playing against the ‘general public’? Given the polling for the Joolz-powered ALP, it appears your scoreboard is keeping the imaginary scoreline of a game that does not exist.
You’ve got me pretty excited with the prospect of an upcoming actual point sometime soon, Fractious. Though, given your previous track record, best not get too emotionally invested.
Hope is the first step on the path to disappointment, after all.
Howard B said:
That’s just it though. It wasn’t unqualified. It was uttered in the course of explaining why she proposed a market-based price on emissions. It was a reiteration of the Rudd framework of 2009.
Anyone who ‘heard’ that was listening selectively. She said she didn’t rule out legislating a CPRS in the next parliamentary term. The only qualification was the “deep community consensus”. One can say that some people might have read that as stating that she would faff about over it for a while. Certainly, Abbott made no bones about the fact that an ALP government would price carbon. They didn’t deny it and most Greens preferences went to the ALP on that basis.
I would not have had Gillard use the wrod ‘tax’ at all for the price on carbon emissions, so your suggestions are moot. She’d simply have said that she was introducing an ETS as promised with an initial FPP.
Axiomatic you say? Well if you can’t argue the case, you’d better have an axiom.
The ‘highest echelons’ demand a low standard of intellectual or political acumen, unless one identifiwes these with lack of ethical scruple, and the ability to mislead with a straight face.
“Juliar!” How refreshing.
Once again.
Slowly.
She didn’t lie. She said something like “No carbon tax. Yes, we will pursue legislating an alternative method of carbon price.”
It’s ironic that her published declaration should be somehow considered disingenuous, when you consider that there has been a constant stream of widely publicised debate of the merits of a CPRS versus a standard tax since Malcolm Turnbull arrived on the scene and that other Howard just wouldn’t give up.
Howard B, please move on from bumper sticker thinking. You are being a dick.
Incorrect. The prediction in question pertains to 2010. Whilst Tones may have lost the after-election wrangling, he certainly didn’t ‘lose’ the election. When you factor in the historical context that all first-time Australian governments are virtually guaranteed a second-term out-right majority (even Gough got one!), the 2010 election clearly disproved that Abbott is ‘unelectable’ in the eyes of the Australian public.
Looking to the future, ‘unelectable’ is defined by the OED as “Very likely to be defeated in an election”. Given the 2010 result and current polling, those who maintain that an Abbott-powered Coalition is ‘unelectable’ are probably confusing how they wish the world to be with how it is in reality.
What a load of rubbish. He isn’t Prime Minister and never will be. That’s what people mean when they say he’s “unelectable”. You know, not capable of being elected? When he’s elected, by all means come back and tell us obviously wasn’t “unelectable”. But only when he’s elected. You’ll know this has happened when he’s Prime Minister. Until then, the claim holds.
Dennis Shanahan, 03/02/2011:
Martin O’Shannessy, 11/07/2007
It’s fun to work out who is entitled to be disappointed with the outcome on carbon pricing.
1. Believed Tony Abbott that Gillard would bring in “a carbon tax” but supported the model of carbon pricing favoured by Tony Abbott in October 2009 — i.e. “a simple carbon tax” rather than an ETS. Voted ALP to get it. Entitled to be annoyed with Tony Abbott for misleading them.
2. Believed Tony Abbott that Gillard would bring in “a carbon tax” but supported the model of carbon pricing favoured by Julia Gillard in August 2010 — i.e. “a CPRS” rather than an ETS. Voted LIberal on that basis. Entitled to be annoyed with Tony Abbott for misleading them.
3. Believed Tony Abbott that Gillard would bring in “a carbon tax” but opposed all models for explicitly pricing carbon. Voted Liberal on that basis. Entitled to be annoyed they didn’t win the election because most people voted to price carbon. Entitled to be miffed at being misled by Abbott on detail
4. Supported any model of explicit carbon pricing. Believed Abbott on the carbon tax intentions of Gillard. Voted ALP or Greens on that basis. Indifferent, but . entitled to be miffed at being misled by Abbott on detail
5 Supported an ETS. Believed Gillard. Voted ALP/Greens on that basis. Satisfied though might think it could have been more robust. No basis for being misled.
A handful might have been miffed at the absence of a citizens’ assembly and “dep consensus. Gillard also failed to win in her own right, and this wasn’t an issue of principle however.
Editorial, The Australian, 12/07/2007:
Fran
The woman herself conceded to the characterization of the current scheme as a ‘tax’ on 7.30 with Heater Ewatt around the 24th of Feburary last year. This suggests Gillard realised arguing that the initial scheme, with its compulsory contribution to the state, is anything other than a form of tax, was only going make her appear more disingenuous, and thus decided to cut her loses and concede the obvious.
That she also felt compelled to use the circumstances of minority government as something of an excuse regarding this issue, appears a further concession that the initial part of this scheme was not simply the promised policy of 2010.
Finally, if one excels in one’s field it is axiomatic that they possess acumen for said field. That being, if one reaches the highest echelons of democratic politics, it is self-evident that they must possess political acumen else, they wouldn’t be there.
Here I think you a still confusing what you believe to be correct policy in general with the qualities required to actually see it become law.
The same broad point could be made regarding intellect given the inherently cerebral nature of the field of politics.
DogSpear
I don’t think I ever suggested that Gillard deliberately, or maliciously, sought to deceive, merely that she did commit to something, and that something has, for whatever reason, not come to pass.
That this is so certainly does not absolve the Liberals’ many policy contortions on the issue, as you have pointed out.
Finally, whilst you may disagree with me, I’d have to say your unprovoked insult of ‘dick’ from across the digital ether brands you a pussy. And we all know what dicks do to pussies.
I’m sure Flannery will be delighted to hear this.
Howard, B said:
As we saw above, not really. Yet her clumsy response underlines my point about her lack of acumen.
As intuitively reasonable as that normally sounds, politics is an exception. Politics is a field in which the ethically vacuous and intellectually inept are often chosen precisely because of these qualities. Those who really run the show prefer that it it never occurs to their proteges to think for themselves or otherwise leave the reservation. At most, the proteges may be credited with convincing the real players that they are at their disposal and may well prove useful. I understand that in the US Mitt Romney’s chief political asset is his jawline. Sarah Palin was photogenic and appeared as an ‘soccer mom’. Barack Obama was probably an exception to the rule that Presidents must be intellectual mediocrities but he lacks politcal acumen. Clinton probably had modest claims. Carter less so. Ford not at all.
Guys,
If you must throw pearls before swine, remember what Woodrow Wilson said,
Well I don’t understand why so much energy is being expended arguing if Gillard lied during some interview. I mean, she doesn’t even honour signed contracts !
On the bright side, noting that Abbott has ruled out a return to workchoices, if he should become PM and then install something exactly the same as workchoices (perhaps with some incredibly minor technical difference not evident to Joe Average), we will have Fran Barlow in the trenches with us pointing out why workchoices ver 2 is not a breach of trust with the public LOL.
Freddy P
Now, now Fred, don’t let your emotions run away with you. I understand if you personally dislike Abbott and his politics, but that is beside the point.
Well, to take your comment as a whole, no. The term ‘unelectable’ pertains to the odds of being elected, specifically the lack thereof. Once again from the eggheads at Oxford on ‘unelectable’: “Very likely to be defeated at an election.” That is, it’s not the actual result of an election, Fred, that determines one’s unelectability, it’s the likelihood of not winning. Someone may be very popular and likely to win but still fail to do so: this does not make them ‘unelectable’.
Now, given the historic 2010 result (didn’t the Coalition score over half the popular vote, or the some such?) and current polling, I don’t think you can objectively say that Abbott is very likely to lose next election. This is not to say he is a certain to win, merely he has enough electoral support to make him competetive and thus not the near certain to lose that defines unelectability. Hell, I wouldn’t even call Julia Gillard ‘unelectable’ even at her current polling.
Should Pauline be gearing-up for another tilt, I would say she is, and has been for a while, unelectable.
Fran
I would have said that cutting her loses in this regard in order to avoid further portrayal as a mealy-mouthed obfuscantist demonstrated a glimmer of political acumen in this particular issue-within-an-issue.
Alas, we have probably flogged this horse as far it can go.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to leave you alone to your cynical and conspiritorial views on this matter, except to ask: if this is all so, can we assume Mr Grahem Wood to be one of those who ‘really run the show’?
Cuppa
Cuppa,
If you must throw insults and sneers instead of rebuttals and points, remember what intellectual giant, strapping specimen of manhood and all-round affable chap, Howard,B. said,
“I’m sure Flannery will be delighted to hear this.”
Why would Flannery care? He knows bugger all about climate change anyway !
Howard, B offered:
Doubtless — that is your claim. Apart from being wrong as a matter nof practice, it was also a blunder. It was immediately taken as an admission of a breach of promise which then morphed into ‘Juliar‘. Compared with the perception amongst some who would never vote ALP in a pink fit that she might have been playing footsie with her promise, this was huge. It’s hard to imagine why one would think this the lesser risk, unless one were verging on clueless as to how politics works in this country.
He’s not running the show. He’s more like an ad hoc street performer out the front of the show providing amusement for the niche in the crowd who like something a little more ‘off Broadway’.
Errrm … isn’t this post about compiling the predictions of pundits, rather than the politicians? The whole carbon price/tax thing has been done to death.
Fran
The Juliar thing was coming, in one form or another, either way; hence it was prudent to cut the loses and not be trapped in the role of dissembler aguing in bad faith on a point of technicality.
As for one’s understanding of how ‘politics works in this country’, it normally goes something like this: the government governs for three years whilst the opposition attempts to point out its flaws, at the end of which there is an election; The Greens get their ten-or-so percent whilst the embittered membership thereof mutter about ‘how politics works in this country’.
Regarding your assessment of Mr Wood’s role in politics: very cute. I guess all that cynical and conspiratorial talk before wasn’t so much about ‘politics’ per se, merely political parties other than your own.
Howard, B declared
But that’s just it. The wording amplified the losses and was thus imprudent, even on the basis of saying what would be self-serving. Inviting others to judge you by the latest spurious LNP/Murdochratic criteria is self-evidently ill-advised.
More importantly though, her words were an abdication of the responsibility of the PM to educate the public on matters of public policy, so that they can better evaluate the claims circulating in the boss class press. By no reasonable standard was what the PM had in mind ‘a carbon tax’. She might have contrasted what she had in mind with policies that could have been so described to clarify the point. Instead, she allowed discussion over public policy in this area to be debauched through resort to equivocation, perversely, to her detriment.
I’ve not suggested anything so grandiose as a conspiracy. One doesn’t need to do a ring around to work out what the most significant elements of the boss class want in broad terms. In recent years, Big Filth, Big Dirt, Big Drink, Big Smoke and Big Mouth have been very explicit in what they want. Recently, even Big Spin has made a noise and secured a win of sorts.
Given that my party is unlikely to be more than a party of the margins in the short to medium term, it’s perfectly unremarkable that I should have focused my remarks on the majors. My own party is yet to be tested by the above mentioned interest sets, largely because we only suggest policy but don’t actually make it. For the record though, it’s fanciful to imagine that Mr Wood could hope for any personal benefit in trade for his support. He’s just not that silly.
Fran
Uh-oh. Looks like a bout of unreconstructed communism is about flare-up; so, given this carousel has come full circle, I’m going to have to leave you to your bitter wallow in the failed, retrograde us-and-them politics of a bygone age.
Howard, B wittered:
As long as the bosses, who, after all, are the folk you no doubt see as possessed of the most acumen, see equity as envy and class war, there’s no reason for working people to take a more benign view.
Your ostensible cognitive dissonance shames you, either because it’s disingenuous or marks you as gravely naive.
Like Ruprecht, I thought this was meant to be about wild and shameless predictions?
We are now at comment # 76 and I still don’t think anyone has come close to Wayne Sanderson @ 5.
Here’s a suggestion: Fran and Howard, meet up and have a shag. Just get it behind you so we can all move on. Its a shame WordPress doesn’t allow PM’ing as it would allow you guys to have your in depth arguments on semantics (e.g 20+ posts) privately. It would also allow a more private way to exchange a meeting place
I think you both realise that neither of you are going to change each others minds. Pre coital at least.
Personally Trippi Taka, I thought your monkey was funnier.
Fran, Try just ignoring Blowhard, B. That way he can’t derail topics.
OK, here’s a prediction to memorialise. Its from an interview posted on Business Spectator yesterday between Dick Warburton (Manufacturing Australia Chair) and Robert Gottliebson. I have extracted a chunk because the “prediction” is teased out over a few questions.
Sorry there’s no end-date on the prediction, but as the conversation is linked to the current rate of the AUD, I suspect that the prediction can be “judged” when / if the AUD is back at parity or below.
100,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector is a BIG call. 400,000 jobs lost in the sector is bigger than the biggest big thing I can think of.
Clive Palmer, 11/02/2012:
I heard on RN today something about some research somewhere* saying that often the punters did better than the pundits for prediction. ie If you want to know who will win the next election (or whatever) look at the odds on centerbet. Who is gonna be PM next monday arvo? Well, lets see what they say. I can’t help but think that centerbet et al could be incorporated into this award somehow.
*Sorry for the vagueness, I was driving at the time. It was Counter Point I think, and they didn’t give a reference to it, a little help from the smart cookies please?
So let’s sum up…It’s over.
I suspect [Rod McGarvie] is the bloke who will run again – and win.
I don’t think this class war talk from the battler’s friend, a successful lawyer now living in Kirribilli, will turn out so well
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All